IGF CultureWatch

The May 15 decision by the California Supreme Court overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage is clearly major news for all of us. It was a robust, comprehensive decision that examined nearly all the traditional arguments against permitting same-sex marriage and found them wanting.

The court said, "In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry-and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society-the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation."

Specifically, the court pointed out that (1) allowing gays only a differently named relationship (such as "civil unions") will "impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples," (2) given the prejudice that gays have historically faced, forbidding them the word "marriage" would likely be viewed as an official view that their relationships are of lesser stature, and (3) calling gay relationships by a different name could perpetuate the view that gays and gay couples are "second-class citizens."

The decision is significant for several reasons. The majority included three justices appointed by Republicans and the court's lone Democratic appointee and was written by Republican-appointed Chief Justice Ronald George. And the California court is regarded as influential since other state courts sometimes look to it for precedents and judicial reasoning.

Even more important, the court drew an explicit parallel between government bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage, citing its own 1948 decision striking down California's ban on interracial marriage, a decision far in advance of the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down all state prohibitions on interracial marriage.

Perhaps most important in the long run, observing that marriage was a fundamental constitutional right, the court-a first for a high court-invoked a demanding justification for discriminatory treatment of different groups called "strict scrutiny" and found that the state government's rationale for denying gays the word and status of "marriage" could not pass that test.

The three dissents do not seem to be up to snuff. They all argue, among other things, that the decision violates the separation of powers and constitutes judicial overreach. The court should have left an important matter like gay marriage to the political process, they argue.

But, of course, the California legislature has already passed bills instituting gay marriage-not once but twice. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills, saying that the issue should be settled by the state Supreme Court.

The court had already stated that the legislature could not make an interpretive end run around a popularly approved proposition banning gay marriage, by claiming that it applied only to recognition of out-of-state gay marriages. So the issue faced, if not an impasse, at least a complicated legal situation. So in a way the court may have felt pressured to rule.

For partners who have been together for many years, marriage must feel like a long-delayed state certification of the worthiness and legitimacy of their relationship, just as the state did for their parents and grandparents. For young gays, however, who are early in the first throes of romantic love with a new partner, marriage may be a dangerous temptation.

How many young gays do we all know who claimed they were deeply in love with a new partner, only to lose interest in a few months and go off in search of a new partner? To be sure, some youthful attachments do endure, but a prolonged period of getting to know each other seems desirable. Young people should remember the old adage, "Marry in haste, repent at leisure."

California's constitution is the most "populist" in the country, allowing a simple majority of voters to institute state policies, recall state officials-and reverse Supreme Court decisions. What gay Californians face now is an initiative to undo the court's decision and once again prohibit gays from marrying.

So California gays now have the task of gearing up for an acrimonious and expensive fight to preserve gay marriage. Gays may well lose. Eight years ago slightly more than 61 percent of California voters approved just such a ban. Since then, public opinion has slowly moved in the direction of support for gay marriage, but by barely one percent or less a year. Probably not enough.

So the pro-marriage campaign had better be a good one, cogent and well-thought out. Examine it carefully before you respond to the myriad of fundraising appeals we will all soon be getting.

"Gay Pride" was created as a response to the fact that being gay was a stigmatized identity. But nearly 40 years after Stonewall is it OK to abandon the notion of gay pride? Is it all right if I just feel OK about being gay and not make a big fuss-an over-compensatory fuss, frankly-about how proud I am?

If you are young and/or newly out of the closet, you might take pride in your psychological achievement of confronting the remaining stigma and your courage in coming out. And for a few years you might need the encouragement that the notion of "gay pride" can provide. But after five or 10 years, I hope you'd find something else or something more to be proud of.

To be sure, for a long time there will be areas of hostility to gays, primarily religious or ethnic. So where those have considerable influence, "gay pride" is still a valuable (if over-simplified) message to send to young and closeted gays within those communities.

For the rest of us, it is possible to take a kind of derivative pride in the achievements of gays and lesbians in the past-and they are considerable-but it is best to feel pride in something you personally achieved in your life. If that achievement is somehow related to being gay, so much the better.

For instance, you might take pride in being a volunteer for some gay community or AIDS service organization. Or, and I am anticipating a future column here, you could be part of a gay group that provides services to the broader community; not everything has to be directed inward. I am thinking of the "Toys for Tots" projects that leather clubs used to undertake. But, no doubt, there is still plenty of work to do in our community.

The annual Pride Parade is useful, despite its occasional silliness, as the largest and most visible representation of our community to closeted gays and to the general public. It shows our range of religious and social service organizations, the range and vibrancy of gay businesses, and the level of support that large corporations increasingly provide for us. All this helps legitimize us and demonstrates that the gay community is a bustling, thriving community.

It also serves as a kind of psychological boost (however brief) for not-very-active gays. It is not unknown for some parade observer on the spur of the moment to step off the sidelines and join a marching contingent.

For those wary of the television cameras, I will share a personal anecdote. I used to live in a small university town. One year, maybe 30 years ago, during the week after the pride parade, a student I hardly knew came up to me and asked diffidently, "Were you in Chicago last weekend?" "Yes, I was." "Were you in some sort of parade?" "Yes, I was in the Gay Pride Parade." "Cool," he said. "I saw you on television." So the cachet of being on television outweighs any other response.

A few suggestions. The service organizations that depend on volunteers should strongly encourage their volunteers to march in the parade. For instance, the local community center claims "hundreds" of volunteers. If so, show us. And show the general public our level of community spirit. That might encourage others to volunteer as well.

A generation ago, it was difficult to get any politicians except the most liberal from the safest districts to participate in the parade. Not any longer. The number has now grown quite large as every office holder and political aspirant wants the publicity of being in the parade. So now, in order to qualify for admission to the parade, politicians should have to sign a statement saying they support domestic partner benefits in their office and civil unions or gay marriage. If they don't, what are they doing in OUR parade?

The large corporations that enter floats should have to disclose whether they have a non-discrimination clause, whether they offer domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian employees, whether they have and support a gay employees organization. And they should be encouraged to indicate any corporate support they have given to gay organizations. That information could be noted in the program booklet for the parade.

And finally, I wish there would be groups advocating sexual freedom in opposition to the puritanism of conservative religious sects and the present administration, a group advocating gun ownership and martial arts training for gays as means of self-defense, a gay teachers and professors group, and an artists group advocating community support for the arts. Maybe next year.

When strangers stare at me across a bar, I like to imagine it's because they find me attractive. More often than not, however, it's because they recognize me from the local gay paper.

"You're John Corvino, aren't you? The Gay Moralist?"

It happened just last weekend as I was vacationing in Saugatuck, a gay-friendly resort town on Lake Michigan. I was at tea dance, and I had drunk quite a bit of tea-of the Long Island iced variety. I tend to become flirtatious when inebriated, and at the time the stranger approached, I had my arms around two very handsome fellow partygoers.

The stranger leaned in. "So you're the Gay Moralist?" He said it in an almost accusatory tone.

"Yes-that's me."

"Looks more like the Gay IMmoralist to me," he sneered, before turning and abruptly walking away.

Maybe he was jealous, I told myself. Or maybe he assumed I was cheating on my husband, who in fact was standing just a few feet away. Perhaps he just disapproved of my inebriation (though judging from his breath, he had quite a few drinks himself). In any case, his comment stuck with me. Was I setting a bad example? And why should I care?

I title my column "The Gay Moralist" because I'm an ethics professor who writes about moral subjects, not because I hold myself up as a moral exemplar. Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a good time, even one that includes drinking and flirtation. Such things-in moderation-can contribute to life's joy, and there's moral value in joy.

To say that is not to endorse hedonism. Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the ONLY moral value. I'm a pluralist about value, and I believe that there are times when pleasure (especially transitory pleasure) must be sacrificed for greater goods.

Nor is it to embrace relativism, the view that moral truth is whatever we believe it to be. Human beings can, and do, get ethics wrong sometimes, as any honest look at history (including one's personal history) should make clear.

But one way to get ethics wrong is to insist that pleasure is never a moral value, or worse yet, that it's a moral evil. Pity those cultures who think that, for example, dancing is immoral.

There are philosophical traditions which teach-foolishly-that pleasure never constitutes a reason for action. They then get themselves in a twist over seemingly easy questions such as whether chewing gum is permissible apart from its teeth-cleaning tendencies. Relax, guys. Have a freakin' cookie.

Certainly there are pleasures-such as drinking and flirting-that can easily get out of hand. Maybe that's why we tend to think of them as "naughty," even when indulged in moderation. Or perhaps we've inherited the puritanism of our forebears. In any case, I freely admit that I've had moments of excess, amply earning my other, unofficial nickname, "The Naughty Professor." (Given human nature, that column might attract even more readers than "The Gay Moralist.") As Aristotle said, "Moderation in all things-even moderation itself."

Aristotle understood that while moderation is crucial, it is important to guard against slipping from a reasonable caution into an unhealthy-and morally undesirable-puritanism. It is especially important for gays to do so, since so many in the world would deny us pleasure-including some important pleasures related to human intimacy.

There are those who caricature gays as being obsessed with pleasure. No doubt some are. Perhaps they're overreacting to being denied certain pleasures for too long, or perhaps, having been rejected by "normal" society, they lack appropriate social restraints. Everyone needs a moral community, for both its positive and negative injunctions.

But the proper alternative to excessive indulgence is not puritanism; it's moderation. Our opponents believe that there is never an appropriate context for homoerotic pleasure, so they present us with dilemma: you can either embrace gayness or embrace morality, but not both. It's a false dilemma, and we ought to denounce it. Put another way, we can reject their bad moralizing without rejecting moralizing altogether.

The fact is that we are all moralists, since we all must decide what to endorse, what to tolerate, and what to forbid. As "The Gay Moralist," I just happen to write about such things.